08/09/2010

Musings on Religion and Secularism

Paul's Irreligious Musings



Paul's Musings on Religion and Secularism

The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism

July 2009.

Richard Beake, recusant.

I enjoyed reading this from http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66017, which a member highlighted on the National Secular Society's weekly email recently:

Middlesex Sessions Roll, 6 December 1625

Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentishtowne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey:

“That he cared not a f. for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe. Lett the Justices kisse his A.”

Like Richard Beake I had to go to church.  I didn't stand up for my beliefs with the same vigour, though.

 

Debaptism Certificate

 

Paul's debaptism certificate

This bit of fun is my way of formalising my rejection of the tenets of my baptism, which I think took place when I was about six weeks old.  It holds no importance whatsoever, and of course there is no need for it, other than as a public statement.  The NSS produced this certificate as a bit of fun some years ago, and it seems to have recently caught many people's imagination.

 

Pro-Religious Rights, but not Pro-Religion.

I want to make it clear that although I feel religion is at best a mistake,  I am not anti-religious (at least I try not to be).  You are entitled to believe what you want, and I respect your right to hold your beliefs no matter how ridiculous and improbable they are.  I think everyone has the right to celebrate their beliefs, subject to secular sensibilities (e.g. not causing harm to others).  Religion should be, however, purely a matter of private conscience- just remember that not everybody shares your interpretation of whichever particular copy of a miscopy of a copy of an ancient text written by men.  Unless you can put forward a rational argument that makes sense to those of different views then please don't expect your views to be adopted by others.  Please don't impose your dogma on the rest of us!  This is the basis of my support for the National Secular Society.

The Dawkins Scale.

How do you score yourself on this scale of (non)religiousness, adapted from The God Delusion?  I would love to see a proper survey carried out based on these questions.

1: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of a god. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in a god and live my life on the assumption that this god is there.
3: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in a god.'
4: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'A god's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether a god exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think a god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no god, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows'.

This of course measures your belief/disbelief in any deity, including multiples.  Note that I refer to 'a god' rather than the original 'God' to include other beliefs.

I am very confident that there are no gods, but I do not pretend to 'know'.  Hence I would score myself as a very high 6.


June 2009.

Absolute/Objective Morals

This month I went on a debate on Premier Christian Radio against David Robertson, a Christian evangelist.  I certainly could have done much better in the debate, and would love to be able to rerun it, having prepared answers in advance this time.  Clearly I wasn't able to think fast enough at the time, and was unable to hold lots of information in my brain whilst I was being bombarded with points, each of which I would have liked to address.  The subject was 'Absolute Morals' (Objective Morals).  David's view was that morals are imprinted in us given by his god, given that men (and women presumably) are made in the image of this god.  I obviously view things completely differently, and see that I should have gone on the offensive, which is easier said than done when you are new to this game.  Still, it was my first time and I think I was thrown in the very deep end.  A good learning experience though.  I hope to write up the points made in the debate, specifically for my own benefit, but to enable me to think through the points I should have made at the time.  If I ever get round to it I shall then create a link to it on this page.

This was an excellent way to learn about the way these things work, and even though I don't feel I performed particularly well I am very glad I did it.

From something I said in the debate I now realise that whenever I am introduced to Christians I should say "My name is Paul, but you can call me Saul".

Separation of Religion and State.

('Church and State' in the US consitution).  To my mind the only fair system of government is to provide a clear gap between the activities of government, and those of religious (or anti-religious) bodies.  The USA's first amendment, and French laïcité are to me the best start-points for developing a British model.  There are various advantages to this approach:
1) It guarantees individuals freedom to practise their religion, subject to smallprint (e.g. preventing child abuse, imposition of their religion on others, etc.)
2) It guarantees that no one is be compelled to finance any religion (e.g. through public money).
3) It prevents the state from identifying with any one religion.
4) It prevents the state from interfering with any religion.

It is interesting to note that the British government currently and historically pays millions of pounds to religious bodies for religious purposes.  This I find immoral, particularly as religious groups are not expected to defend their beliefs from criticism, but they are for some reason exempt from scrutiny.  For example many religions argue that homosexuality is wrong on dogmatic grounds.  We have public discussions on whether to progress anti-discrimatory laws, but the basis of the opposition of religious groups on this matter is rarely questioned from outside- it is usually considered that people's religious beliefs must never be challenged, except perhaps by people of the same faith.  The quote below sums it up very well:
"Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'."  (Douglas Adams)
My general argument is that the writings of some remote uneducated tribes over a thousand years ago are not a good start point for discussing morality in the 2000's.  Many religious bodies are involved in practices which go directly against modern thinking (e.g. the Catholic church's approach to family planning, Islamic teaching against sexual equality, the opposition of many religious groups to gay rights, and many many more examples).  These organisations are being supporting with my taxes, and I find this objectionable.

I would like to know how much of my money is given to 'faith groups' by central and local government in the UK.  Other people will have equally strong opposition to tax money going to particular religious groups, or freethinking groups (not that this tends to happen).  Make a separation between religion and state and many problems disappear as no religious groups can make any claim on the state.

May 2009.

Are humans innately religious?

I suspect not, but it is an interesting question, and one that I think needs to be addressed from more than one approach:

1) 'Hole filling', or 'The god of the gaps'.

Clearly there seems to be a need in people for an explanation for things.  Humans seem to need to model the world in order to understand it, which is partly why we have been such a successful species over the last few thousand years.  However, there are certain questions that in the past we have not been able to answer, and are only beginning to develop answers now.  When people have not been able to work out the answer, the gap in understanding needs to be filled by something- and that something is usually one or more gods.  Hence the gods of lightning, the sun, the harvest, etc.  These ideas have developed into a god that creates faulty humans and sends them to hell for being faulty.
"Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one." (Jim Crawford)

2) Meme theory.

Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion has some interesting, if complex ideas on the development of religions. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but he observes that religions seem to share some similarities with a computer virus.  He refers to these self-replicating ideas as memes, which instil themselves into a host body for their own benefit.  The main beneficiaries are the religious leaders and perhaps the leaders of the society (if they are not one and the same).  The societal group gets a potential benefit in its enhanced tribalism.  This concept needs further thought, but there is the seed of an idea there.  In essence we are talking about a mind virus.

"Religion is like a virus that affects the behaviour of its host in such a way as to propagate itself further." (Jack Pritchard)

3) Were all societies religious?

History doesn't tend to keep a clear record of how many people disbelieved in their religion in the past, as it wasn't usually a wise thought to express.  How many people just go along with their religion just because it was what they are expected to do?  And how many disbelieve but don't (or daren't) speak up?  Remember, in the past it was often the religious who were in charge and/or in control of what was recorded.

4) The god-shaped hole.

Everybody, it is argued, has a god-shaped hole.  Some fill it with a god, some don't.  The argument that humans have an innate need for religion may is debatable, but to me it is a self-defeating argument.  If you accept the premise that we have a need for a god then you have just provided an exceptionally strong motive to invent one, regardless of any evidence for such a god's existence.  Ergo people have a need to invent religions and have done so since the dawn of time.  I don't have a god-shaped hole, and cannot speak for those who feel they do.

Everybody is born an atheist.

Remember that when you were born you didn't believe in a god- it had to be instilled in you.  I actually consider myself a polyatheist- there are many gods I don't believe in.  I suspect most people are also polyatheists, as there are many gods they don't believe in either.  My atheism includes God/Jahweh/Allah.  Like Dawkins, I say that most of us disbelieve in many gods, I just take it one god further.

April 2009

Yip Harburg

Yip Harburg wrote 'Over the Rainbow', and also lots of interesting other songs and poems.  I particularly like these ones:

ATHEIST

Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree;

And only God who makes the tree, Also makes the fools like me.

But only fools like me, you see, Can make a God, who makes a tree.

 

MUTUAL ADMIRATION

"Speaking of the Common Man," said Lincoln, "God must love him." 
And the Common Man, he must love God-- He made so many of Him.

 

The problem of evil.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" (Epicurus, c.341-270 BCE)

The long standing question of theodicy (how can a god be omniscient, omnipotent and omniscient yet still allow evil in the world?) is, I think easily solved.  For those who don't believe in a god it is just a way of demonstrating that the whole hypothesis hasn't been properly thought through.  But it does also provoke an interesting discussion, if only to watch people try to contort their arguments to make it fit.

March 2009. Why are these Revelations only Revealed to Some?

What sort of god is it that spreads its message by giving an ambiguous sacred text to one tribe and a different one to another.  Why did this god only reveal itself to such a tribe, expecting the whole world to believe in it without evidence (something that St. Paul, the disciples and lots of other biblical characters weren't expected to swallow)?

This new religion, given this start, would spread slowly, so that its god has condemned all those outside its sphere of influence to hell for not believing something that they don't know about anyway?  This seems a little illogical and unfair to me.  Oh no, I have just remembered, hell doesn't exist any more.. or is it that we don't get sent there now.. or was it that good people from other religions don't go there?  I don't know- the rules seem to change with the wind.

A question I have yet to hear a good answer to is the one that I have heard was often posed by Chinese Christian converts- why did this god only give his message to an obscure tribe in an obscure language?  If it was so good why didn't this god tell more people about it?

February 2009

Darwinism and belief in a god.

There has been some discussion recently on Darwin's theories being an attack on the existence of a god.  I don't see why you can't believe in both if you want to.  I think that Darwin's theory was an unintended direct attack on the teachings of most churches at the time.  Up until that time Western religions seem to have taught creation theory, but Darwin completely destroyed that argument.  I understand that religious people in the UK tend to accept evolution, whereas in the USA the opposite is true (the statistics are out there somewhere).  Is this because the Anglican church has tended to take a less dogmatic approach than that of the Catholic or more extreme Protestant churches?  Or that most of the predominant churches have taken a more reasoned line?  I don't know, but I can't imagine that anyone looking at the arguments from a neutral standpoint could possibly decide that the creationist approach is logical.

Of course Darwinism doesn't explain how life got going int he first place.  I freely admit that we don't know, but I expect more evidence will be found (or deduced) by science in the near future.  I do not follow the "I don't know, so it must be a god" approach.

'Secularist of the Year' award.

My birthday present in 2009 was a ticket to the Secularist of the Year Awards presented by Richard Dawkins, who read out the quote:

"Science flies you to the moon.  Religion flies you into buildings."

Note this observation, whilst obviously criticising some modern Islamists, is also an attack on all organised religions.

January 2009

The history of my disbelief in gods.

I was raised in an Anglican family, and was expected to go to church every Sunday, in my Sunday best.  I was baptised as a baby, confirmed when I was about thirteen and I stopped going once it became clear to my parents that there was little point in insisting that I should go, probably when I was fifteen.  I used to pretend to go to the 8:00 service on my own, but instead I used to read magazines in the outside toilet for half an hour, rather than going with the family to the hour-long 9:30 service.

I don't think I used to complain about having to go to church because I didn't know I could.  Richard Dawkins describes his wife (Lalla Ward)'s problem of being in this position in the God Delusion very well- I would recommend reading the relevant chapter (and the rest of the book).  I allowed myself to be confirmed at about thrteen because it was expected of me, like doing school exams.  I can't say that I put any effort into learning the odd poem or prayer, and I remember being surprised when I was told I had passed the test when I clearly didn't know it properly (the Creed, I think).  To me it was just another thing I was expected to do, like going to school, and I didn't think to challenge it, although I always felt that it was a load of nonsense and it was wrong to have to go to church.  I wasn't aware of having any right not to go to something I didn't believe in, and I certainly wasn't taught about such rights in Sunday School or at home.  I probably assumed all my friend had to go to church as well.

As far as I recall I seem to have always had a healthy natural immunity from religion- I can't really remember no longer believing in Father Christmas, nor can I remember ever believing in religion.  It is because of this that I find the subject interesting- I honestly have no idea why anyone would believe in a god, but would like to understand why people do.

My favourite quotes of the moment:

  • Religion is like a big dog- if it's yours you feel safe and warm, but if it's somebody else's then it is very scary.  Most importantly, keep it away from children.
  • The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins)
  • The Bible: A Grim Fairy Tale (FFRF)
  • Faith is believing what you know ain't so (Mark Twain)
  • Blasphemy is a victimless crime
  • If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits. (Dan Barker)
  • You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say "God is love," they will claim that you are taking things out of context!
  • Faith means not wanting to know what is true. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
  • We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. (Gene Roddenberry)
  • Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger 4BCE-65CE)
  • Philosophy is about questions that may never be answered. Religion is about answers that may never be questioned.
  • With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. (Steven Weinberg)
  • Imagine there's no Heaven, it's easy if you try.  No hell below us, above us only sky.  Imagine all the people living for today.  Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do.  Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.  Imagine all the people living life in peace (John Lennon)
  • I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. (Doug McLeod)
  • I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. (Susan B. Anthony)
  • Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men. (Francis Bacon)
  • Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence.
  • What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. (Christopher Hitchens)
  • It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. (George W. Foote)
  • On the first day, man created God.
  • I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Roberts)
  • You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate. (Richard A. Weatherwax) [The Koran, perhaps?]
  • God should be executed for crimes against humanity. (Bryan Emmanuel Gutierrez)
  • To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask. (Geoff Mather)
  • I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. (Mark Twain)
  • And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. (Bertrand Russell)
  • I’m a polyatheist - there are many gods I don’t believe in. (Dan Fouts)
  • If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think that he’s evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever. (Woody Allen)
  • A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. (David Stevens)
  • I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. (Douglas Adams)
  • He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. (William Drummond)
  • Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s? (Friedrich Nietzsche)
  • Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.
  • When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life. (Sigmund Freud)
  • They felt that science would be corrosive to religious belief and they were worried about it. Damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive to religious belief and it’s a good thing. (Steven Weinberg)
  • History teaches us that no other cause has brought more death than the word of God. (Giulian Buzila)
  • A believer states everything must have a creator but fail to say how he was created.
  • Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people. (David Viaene)
  • I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. (Mike Fuhrman)
  • Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. (Isaac Asimov)
  • Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. (Chapman Cohen)
  • Science flies you to the moon.  Religion flies you into buildings
  • When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. (Robert Pirsig)
  • I wonder who got the **** job of scouring the planet for the 15000 species of butterfly or the 8800 species of ant they eventually took on board Noah’s Ark. But at least we got that magical rainbow for all their trouble. (Azura Skye)
  • I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. (Richard Dawkins)
  • What has been Christianity’s fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and Persecution. (James Madison)
  • The characters and events depicted in the damn bible are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. (Penn and Teller)
  • Religion is the opiate of the masses. (Karl Marx)  [Actually- Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.]
  • I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk. (Thomas Edison)
  • Fundamentalism, of any type, due to its prerequisite lack of intelligent thought, could prove to be the worst weapon of mass destruction, of all. (David J. Constable)
  • To really be free, You need to be free in the mind. (Alexander Loutsis)
  • Most religions prophecy the end of the world and then consistently work together to ensure that these prophecies come true.
  • Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway.
  • Today’s religion will be the future’s mythology. Both believed at one time by many; but proved wrong by the clever. (Steven Crocker)
  • The Bible - A Fairytale book of rules brainwashing millions. Obliviously used to help create war, kill, hate, judge and discriminate.
  • Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? (Douglas Adams)

December 2008. Some Highlights from the Old and New Testaments

I wonder how many people who profess a faith actually read the less popular bits of their sacred texts.  Here are some bits I have picked out for my own amusement- there are plenty more in a similar vein.  Why not pick up and read one of these horrible books, particularly the Old Testament and the Koran.  The New Testament isn't quite so bad, although it still has its moments.  In Britain children are often encouraged to read these books, and they are even allowed in some schools!  The worrying thing is that some people actually believe these things, and children are frequently told that they are 'the truth' (opinion being told as fact).  I am sure that plenty of more reasonable believers would rather focus on other parts of these documents.  This begs the question- from where do we derive our morals?  For those who do not support bloodshed you cannot say you get your morals from these texts, but a different moral code has to be used to pick and choose the good bits from the bad bits.  Where do the criteria for those decisions come from?  Not from these extracts, that's for sure.  I believe these are fables and myths of ancient, mostly uneducated desert tribes, along with instructions thought up by men to encourage members of their group in tribal self-interest.  Some of these have been copied and miscopied and edited along the way.  Some mere mortals then decided which bits were the word of this god and which ones weren't.  Hmm, doesn't sound very convincing to me.

1) The New Testament

Love of one's family:
  • If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
  • Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew 10:34-5. [NB- It is sometimes argued that this quote is taken out of context, but it has also been used to justify wars]

Social welfare:
  • For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Matthew 13:12

Hell and damnation:
  • ...he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Community cohesion:
  • "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." -- 2 Cor.6:14-17

2) The Old Testament

Child Protection:
  • Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9
  • Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." -- 2 Samuel 12:14
  • Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
  • He that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath. ... And Joshua ... took Achan ... and his sons, and his daughters ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire." -- Joshua 7:15, 24-25
  • Now the house was full of men and women ... about three thousand men and women.... And Samson called unto the LORD, and said ... strengthen me ... that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines.... And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood..... And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life. Judges 16:27-30
  • The Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. -- Exodus 12:29-30 [What a nice god!]
  • And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. Genesis 22:2,10 [Abraham would be locked up nowadays]

Disability Discrimination Act:
  • "And David said on that day, Whosoever ... smiteth ... the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house." -- 2 Samuel 5:8
  • "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." -- Leviticus 21:17-23

What's for dinner?
  • And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:16
  • And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53
  • "And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them." -- Deuteronomy 28:57
  • "And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine." -- Isaiah 49:26
  • "And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend." -- Jeremiah 19:9

Family values:
  • Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36 [If there is a moral in here I can't find it!]

Consideration towards rape victims:
  • If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24 [Rape victims who don't cry loudly enough will be stoned to death]

Spare the rod and spoil the child:
  • The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

Tolerance of other groups:
  • Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. Chronicles 2, 15:13
  • Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18
  • He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.  Exodus 22:20
  • The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." -- Revelation 21:8
  • Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 31:14
  • Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15
  • He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

Democracy:
  • O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. Jeremiah 10:23

3) The Koran:

Child Protection:
  • Not a quote, but note that it is commonly accepted that Mohammed consummated the marriage to his six-year old wife Aisha when she was only nine years old.

There are many hundreds of evil-sounding extracts from the Koran which I hope to add to this page at a later date.